Ideal Types

The Working Paper provides the theoretical foundations for an analytically and normatively adequate understanding of “governance” – a term and concept that has been widely used since the turn of the millennium for describing new forms of political steering and integration. It starts with an overview of the governance discourse at the beginning of the 21st century. We can distinguish a normative and an analytical application of the term governance. In its normative usage, governance constitutes a programmatic alternative to other paradigms for organizing and reforming the state and public administration. The competing paradigms can be subsumed under the terms government and management. For analytical purposes, the term governance is used, by contrast, to diagnose a change in forms of political steering, and sometimes even in politics and statehood altogether and to aptly conceptualise this change. After a critique of existing understandings and typologies, we develop the theoretical building blocks for a comprehensive and at the same time differentiated understanding of governance. First, we look at ‘worldviews’ (Weltbilder), basic assumptions on how the world is functioning or on how the world is supposed to function. Hence, worldviews can correspond to ontologies, basic assumptions on the type of
entities that exist and on their relationships, but also to ideologies as comprehensive conceptualisations of an ideal world. We distinguish between holistic and elementaristic worldviews. Second, we turn to “images of social order” (Gesellschaftsbilder) as the fundamental assumptions on how societies are differentiated and on what holds societies together and describe two basic forms: segmentary differentiation and mechanical integration on the one hand and functional differentiation and organic integration on the other hand. “Models of human nature” (Menschenbilder) serve as the third differentiation criteria for the formation of a theory-based typology of governance. Each model of human
nature comprises a concept of human behaviour/action and the corresponding understanding of institutionalised structures which influence human behav
iour but which are shaped by human behaviour at the same time. The two most important models of human nature in modern social sciences are the homo oeconomicus and homo sociologicus. In order to develop a typology of forms of political governance, we will pick up the third dimension and transform the core insight from the micro- to the macro-level. In line with the homo oeconomicus, the term “government(s)” represents an understanding of political institutions as formalized instruments of the political community; in contrast, the term “governance” denotes a constitutional understanding of political institutions as a communicative structure which (re)creates the political community.
Based on these three dimensions, we develop an eightfold typology of forms of
governance. Whereas “centralised government”, “concerted governments”, “competing governments” and “contracting governments” correspond to the instrumental understanding of institutions in line with the homo oeconomicus, the other four forms –“communitarian governance”, “civic governance”, “creative
governance” and “cogent governance” – build on the constitutive conceptualisation of institutions that correspond to the homo sociologicus. For each of the eight ideal types, we scrutinise the core features so that the typology can be applied in empirical studies for tracing differences and transformations of
ideas and realities in political governing across time and place.

Celem artykułu jest prezentacja statusu i zastosowania metody modelowej zakładanej w idealizacyjnej teorii nauki. Artykuł składa się z następujących części: 1. „Modelowanie w nauce. Dwa przykłady”; 2. „Idealizacja a abstrakcja i izolacja”; 3. „Odmiany modelowania. Próba przeglądu”; 4. „Modelowanie w poznańskiej szkole metodologicznej”; 5. „Problem prawdziwości modeli idealizacyjnych”; 6. „Dwa typy modelowania w naukach społecznych”; 7. „Idealizacja a sfery ludzkiej aktywności intelektualnej”; 8. „Metoda modelowa w historii nauki”.

Text interpretations are usually leading to ambiguous results. This is especially the case for the interpretation of Max Weber's methodology. I discuss Thomas Burger's interpretation that Weber applied Rickert's methodology and that he never developed his own standpoint regarding the methodological problems. In contrast to this view, I propose an alternative interpretation based on the Methodenstreit in economics and the philosophies of Kant and Rickert. In my opinion We-ber offered a very unique solution to an old philosophical problem, which resulted in a complete break with the Platonic and Aristotelian tradition. His solution is what I call the postulate of internal consistency (a logical consistent application of an arbitrary scheme of interpretation). I will use Popper's method of deductive falsification to decide if Burger's or my interpretation produces fewer contradictions.

The article presents an attempt to describe the hybrid regimes as a new type of ideal political regime, which is situated on the continuum axis, by considering the phenomenon of antinomy. The author tried to define the significant features of hybrid regimes based on the analysis of notions and main features of the democracy and authoritarianism. The approach made it possible to create a gradual classification, to provide a reference point for the hybrid regimes' perception, as well as to work on a tool for research the hybrid regimes and on the attempts of this phenomenon explanation.

Reigning views on psychiatric nosology regard as "too subjective" certain features of diagnosis which respected psychiatrists have reported and several empirical studies have confirmed. We describe two of these persistent "mysteries" of psychiatric nosology: rapid diagnoses and the praecox feeling. We then demystify these mysteries by explicating the workings of "typification" in the diagnostic process. The criteria of disorders which are provided by classification manuals, such as DSM-III, are shown to presuppose such typifications. Psychiatric typification, although a preconceptual skill, can be rendered fully scientific and objective.

For schizophrenia, as well as for many other disorders, there are many approaches (McHugh and Slavney, 1998).Nowadays, it is referred to as a mental disorder. This understanding of schizophrenia implies the presence of a core set, which includes symptoms and signs that we can diagnose as well as a specific etiology. This is the paradigm of the disease, and when it became clear that schizophrenia cannot fully comply with this paradigm, psychiatric problems began. We are going to briefly illuminate that stage in the history of psychiatry and mention the discussions of experts who have sought to resolve the problem of schizophrenia. The bulk of this essay will be devoted to another approach to schizophrenia - anthropological.

For more than a decade, research studies on the various personality disorders have been carried out at an ever-expanding pace (Blashfield and McElroy, 1987; Gorton and Akhar, 1990). Factors promoting this research have  included the establishment within the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-III) of a separate axis for the diagnosis of personality disorders, the enumeration within DSM-III of diagnostic criteria for these conditions, and the development of standardized interviews for the assessment of personality disorders.  Innovations such as these are expected to advance the scientific stature of personality disorder research.

Most recent discussions of classification and diagnosis in psychiatry ignore the underlying methodologic and philosophic issues. The authors directly address these issues by redefining a classical approach that was already employed in psychiatry by Karl Jaspers in his General Psychopathology, This conceptual approach, termed .'ideal types," was first developed by the sociologist Max Weber. Many diagnostic entities of clinical psychiatry, such as schizophrenia, manic-depressive illness, and the various neuroses and personality disorders, can be best conceived, the authors argue, as ideal types. After contrasting ideal types with monothetic and polythetic concepts, the authors show how ideal types provide a scientific vocabulary that is capable of both guiding the practice of the clinician and of structuring the investigations of the Researcher.

The normative binary of 'good-progressive' and 'bad-retrograde' nationalism, traceable to the civic and ethnic dichotomy, is alive and well in studies of nationalism and populism today. This article underlines the insufficiency of this approach, firstly by examining three stances on the civic nation in the West, each of which rejects ethnic nationalism and reflect different fundamental concerns. Moving east, in Central Europe the binary is inverted and turned against 'liberal cosmopolitans'; in Russia, the Kremlin's 'state-civilization' project can be viewed as a distinct trend in nation-building for non-Western contemporary great powers.

By combining the methodologies of Max Weber, Karl R. Popper, and Alfred Schutz, it is possible to solve the shared problems of the natural and the social sciences (the Kantian Problem) as well as the specific problems of the social sciences (the Cartesian Dilemma). Max Weber introduces a criterion of logical consistency and consistency of the meaning structure of scientific explanations and conclusions derived out of ideal-types. This is the absence of theory internal contradictions. Karl Popper demanded that theories be “falsifiable” and that they survive the test against reality. This is the absence of external contradictions between theory and reality. However, Popper’s problem is that a theory can only be falsified if the scheme of interpretation used is appropriate. Alfred Schutz offers the solution to this problem. He explains the possibility of an intersubjective understanding. Adequate schemes of interpretation can be constructed if they are based on a (culturally specific) general life-world.

The aim of this paper is to consider the influence of the methodological status of the concept of the totalitarian syndrome on the strategy of its development. It is argued that the totalitarian syndrome as put forward by Carl J. Friedrich and Zbigniew Brzezinski represented a kind of social modelling. However, there are different approaches to modelling in the social sciences. Modelling, when perceived from a neo-Hegelian perspectives, leads to the elaboration of dependencies between social phenomenon and their main factors. Modelling, when seen from a neo-Weberian perspective, relies on the construction of notions which systematize and order social phenomena. This hypothesis is illustrated by a methodological analysis of the extension of the totalitarian syndrome authored by Achim Siegel and Mark Thompson.

The normative binary of ‘good-progressive’ and ‘bad-retrograde’ nationalism, traceable to the civic and ethnic dichotomy, is alive and well in studies of nationalism and populism today. This article underlines the insufficiency of this approach, firstly by examining three stances on the civic nation in the West, each of which rejects ethnic nationalism and reflect different fundamental concerns. Moving east, in Central Europe the binary is inverted and turned against ‘liberal cosmopolitans’; in Russia, the Kremlin’s ‘state-civilization’ project can be viewed as a distinct trend in nation-building for non-Western contemporary great powers.

The Working Paper provides the theoretical foundations for an analytically and normatively adequate understanding of “governance” – a term and concept that has been widely used since the turn of the millennium for describing new forms of political steering and integration. It starts with an overview of the governance discourse at the beginning of the 21st century. We can distinguish a normative and an analytical application of the term governance. In its normative usage, governance constitutes a programmatic alternative to other paradigms for organizing and reforming the state and public administration. The competing paradigms can be subsumed under the terms government and management. For analytical purposes, the term governance is used, by contrast, to diagnose a change in forms of political steering, and sometimes even in politics and statehood altogether and to aptly conceptualise this change. After a critique of existing understandings and typologies, we develop the theoretical building blocks for a comprehensive and at the same time differentiated understanding of governance. First, we look at ‘worldviews’ (Weltbilder), basic assumptions on how the world is functioning or on how the world is supposed to function. Hence, worldviews can correspond to ontologies, basic assumptions on the type of entities that exist and on their relationships, but also to ideologies as comprehensive conceptualisations of an ideal world. We distinguish between holistic and elementaristic worldviews. Second, we turn to “images of social order” (Gesellschaftsbilder) as the fundamental assumptions on how societies are differentiated and on what holds societies together and describe two basic forms: segmentary differentiation and mechanical integration on the one hand and functional differentiation and organic integration on the other hand. “Models of human nature” (Menschenbilder) serve as the third differentiation criteria for the formation of a theory-based typology of governance. Each model of human nature comprises a concept of human behaviour/action and the corresponding understanding of institutionalised structures which influence human behaviour but which are shaped by human behaviour at the same time. The two most important models of human nature in modern social sciences are the homo oeconomicus and homo sociologicus. In order to develop a typology of forms of political governance, we will pick up the third dimension and transform the core insight from the microto the macro-level. In line with the homo oeconomicus, the term “government(s)” represents an understanding of political institutions as formalized instruments of the political community; in contrast, the term “governance” denotes a constitutional understanding of political institutions as a communicative structure which (re)creates the political community. Based on these three dimensions, we develop an eightfold typology of forms of governance. Whereas “centralised government”, “concerted governments”, “competing governments” and “contracting governments” correspond to the instrumental understanding of institutions in line with the homo oeconomicus, the other four forms – “communitarian governance”, “civic governance”, “creative governance” and “cogent governance” – build on the constitutive conceptualisation of institutions that correspond to the homo sociologicus. For each of the eight ideal types, we scrutinise the core features so that the typology can be applied in empirical studies for tracing differences and transformations of ideas and realities in political governing across time and place.

This paper critiques the view, widely held by philosophers of mind and cognitive scientists, that psychological explanation is a matter of ascribing propositional attitudes (such as beliefs and desires) towards language-like propositions in the mind, and that cognitive mental states consist in intentional attitudes towards propositions of a linguistic quasi-linguistic nature. On this view, thought is structured very much like a language. Denial that propositional attitude psychology is an adequate account of mind is therefore, on this view, is tantamount to eliminative materialism, the denial that human beings are thinking beings.

I dispute this on the basis of recent work in cognitive psychology and artificial intelligence. Mental models theory, on which thought is better understood as nonpropositional intentional psychology, accords better with the evidence and offers an alternative view to propositional attitude psychology -- one that means that the denial that that is propositional is not eliminative. However, I argue that propostional attitude psychology is a useful idealization, as classical mechanics is of relativity theory, strictly but not radically false, and useful for prediction and indeed, as long as its idealized character is born in mind, for explanation of behavior.